prompt_add_versioning

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the feature area and flags it as Pro; it does not disclose whether files will be modified, what artifacts are generated, whether existing prompt files are changed, or what side effects the agent should expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the core function early. It is concise, though the brevity also contributes to the lack of useful behavioral and parameter context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter. The one-line description is insufficient for an agent to know what will be generated, where it will be written, what the api_key is for, or what 'A/B testing' generation entails. Significant practical details are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%: only 'directory' has a schema description ('Project directory'), while 'api_key' is undocumented. The description does not explain api_key's role, format, or why it is needed, despite the 'Pro feature' hint. It adds no practical parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a clear action and resource: 'Generate prompt versioning and A/B testing.' This distinguishes it from generic prompt tools like prompt_create_templates and prompt_add_variables, and even from model_add_versioning by being prompt-specific. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what project context is needed. The 'Pro feature' hint implies a licensing constraint but does not explain how to select this tool among the many prompt- and versioning-related siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.